Huhmann v. Fedex Corporation et al

Filing 65

ORDER denying in its entirety Defendant's 58 Motion for Reconsideration re 55 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 10/16/2015. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

DALE HUHMANN,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16

Case No. 13-cv-00787-BAS(NLS)

v.

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 58)

FEDEX CORPORATION, ET AL.,

17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21

Defendant Federal Express Corporation (“Defendant”) brings a Motion for

22

Reconsideration under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, claiming

23

this Court committed clear error when it issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions

24

of Law at the conclusion of a bench trial in this case.

25

The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted

26

and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below,

27

the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 58).

28

///
–1–

13-cv-787

1

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 59(e)1 provides that, after entry of

3

judgment, a court may alter or amend the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A Rule

4

59(e) motion is discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds

5

that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence,

6

or the need to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice. See Sch. Dist. No.

7

1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or., v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993); see

8

also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011); Kona Enters.,

9

Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Additionally, “[t]here is

10

no requirement that reasons be stated for the denial of a motion for reconsideration

11

under Rule 59(e).” Briddle v. Scott, 63 F.3d 364, 381 (5th Cir. 1995).

12

“Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a

13

previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the

14

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v.

15

Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and

16

citation omitted); see also Global View Ltd. Venture Capital v. Great Cent. Basin

17

Exploration, LLC, 288 F. Supp. 2d 482, 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (“The standard for

18

granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless

19

the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to
alter or amend a judgment must be brought no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion for reconsideration brought within this
time period is construed as a Rule 59(e) motion regardless of the label put on it by the
moving party. Am. Ironworks and Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d
892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001). A motion for reconsideration brought after the expiration
of 28 days is construed as a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Id. In this case, judgment was entered on April 9, 2015. (ECF Nos. 55,
56.) Defendant filed this Motion for Reconsideration on May 7, 2015. (ECF No. 58.)
Since the motion was filed 28 days after entry of judgment, it is properly analyzed
under Rule 59(e), despite the fact Defendant couches it as a Rule 60(b) motion.
–2–

13-cv-787

1

matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion

2

reached by the court.” (quoting Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d

3

Cir. 1995)).

4

A Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or

5

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier

6

in the litigation. Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890; see also In re Prince, 85 F.3d

7

314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996) (a “Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to present evidence

8

that could and should have been presented prior to the entry of final judgment”);

9

Pound v. Airosol Co., Inc., 368 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1159 (D. Kansas 2004) (“a party

10

cannot invoke Rule 59(e) to raise arguments or present evidence that should have been

11

set forth in the first instance or to rehash arguments previously considered and rejected

12

by the court”). “[A]fter thoughts” or “shifting of ground” do not constitute an

13

appropriate basis for reconsideration. Ausmus v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 08-CV-2342-

14

L, 2009 WL 2058549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (Lorenz, J.).

15

Further, a Rule 59(e) motion does not give parties a “second bite at the apple.”

16

See Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236-37 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Keweenaw Bay

17

Indian Cmty. v. State of Mich., 152 F.R.D. 562, 563 (W.D. Mich. 1992) (“[W]here the

18

movant is attempting to obtain a complete reversal of the court’s judgment by offering

19

essentially the same arguments presented on the original motion, the proper vehicle

20

for relief is an appeal.”); Bermingham v. Sony Corp. of Am., Inc., 820 F. Supp. 834,

21

856 (D. N.J. 1992), aff’d 37 F.3d 1485 (3d Cir. 1994) (“A party seeking

22

reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and

23

recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its

24

original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.”).

25

II.

DISCUSSION

26

In its Motion for Reconsideration, Defendant simply argues the Court was

27

wrong in its legal analysis. (ECF No. 58.) In its moving papers, Defendant recognizes

28

that “[a] party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the
–3–

13-cv-787

1

Court’s decision” and “recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the

2

court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.”

3

See Bermingham, 820 F. Supp. at 856; see also Weeks, 246 F.3d at 1236-37. However,

4

Defendant’s moving papers express nothing more than exactly that—a disagreement

5

with the Court’s decision and recapitulation of the arguments the Court already

6

considered. A motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate vehicle to gain a

7

second bite at the apple. See Ausmus, 2009 WL 2058549, at *2; Weeks, 246 F.3d at

8

1236-37. If counsel disagrees with the Court’s ruling, the proper vehicle for relief is

9

appeal. See Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty., 152 F.R.D. at 563.

10

Although the Motion for Reconsideration is construed as a motion under Rule

11

59(e), Defendant similarly fails to provide any grounds for reconsideration under Rule

12

60(b). Under Rule 60(b), a motion for reconsideration of a final judgment is proper

13

for the following reasons:

14

(1)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

15

(2)

newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could
not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under
Rule 59(b);

17

(3)

fraud…, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

18

(4)

the judgment is void;

19

(5)

the judgment has been satisfied…; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or

(6)

any other reason that justifies relief.

16

20
21
22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) is also an extraordinary remedy designed to address
23

mistakes attributable to special circumstances, and not merely to erroneous
24

applications of law. See Engleson v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1044 (9th
25

Cir.1994) (citing Ben Sager Chem. Int’l v. E. Targosz & Co., 560 F.2d 805, 809 (7th
26

Cir. 1977)); see also Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of Gen. Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746,
27

749 (7th Cir. 1995) (Rule 60(b) “was designed to address mistakes attributable to
28

special circumstances and not merely to erroneous applications of law”). Nonetheless,
–4–

13-cv-787

1

Defendant raises no issues of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect,

2

newly discovered evidence, fraud, voidness, satisfaction or reversal. As discussed

3

above, Defendant simply raises a disagreement with the Court’s decision. Since

4

Defendant has failed to provide any authority or reason for granting the motion,

5

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED in its entirety.

6

III.

7
8
9

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for

Reconsideration (ECF No. 58).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

DATED: October 16, 2015

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–5–

13-cv-787